"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> If you are going to compare a wild moose with something,
> compare it to similar wildcrafted vegan food, like wild
> raspberries, or wild apples, or wild nuts, etc. 0 cds for
> everyone. Woops, I forgot, you killed the moose!
> 1 cd for you.

The purpose of the moose example is to illustrate that the categorical claim
that "no meat is ever superior to veggies" stance taken by "vegans" is a
fallacy.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> Thanks for helping to demonstrate that, contrary to the
>> foolish assertions of John Coleman, "veganism" VERY
>> MUCH IS about a numbers game.
>
> The numbers, when calculated properly will always
> show eating vegan is better.

No, they don't "always" show that. By "properly" you mean chosen in such a
way that suits you. It's trivially easy to present a "proper" calculation
that favors a diet or meal which includes some animal product or another.

>> It IS a form of religion. A belief system need not
>> have priests and sacred texts to be a religion,
>> although "veganism" has things very much like priests
>> and sacred texts.
>
> I don't agree. At it's most extreme, it could be called
> a lifestyle or a philosophy.

If it walks like a duck...

>
>> There is no such word as "veganic".
>
> There should be. It's a great word. Someone here used
> it a few days ago.

It's just another buzzword for "vegans" to use in their never-ending quest
to promote themselves.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> Thanks for helping to demonstrate that, contrary to the
>> foolish assertions of John Coleman, "veganism" VERY
>> MUCH IS about a numbers game.
>
> The numbers, when calculated properly will always
> show eating vegan is better.

No, they don't "always" show that. By "properly" you mean chosen in such a
way that suits you. It's trivially easy to present a "proper" calculation
that favors a diet or meal which includes some animal product or another.

>> It IS a form of religion. A belief system need not
>> have priests and sacred texts to be a religion,
>> although "veganism" has things very much like priests
>> and sacred texts.
>
> I don't agree. At it's most extreme, it could be called
> a lifestyle or a philosophy.

If it walks like a duck...

>
>> There is no such word as "veganic".
>
> There should be. It's a great word. Someone here used
> it a few days ago.

It's just another buzzword for "vegans" to use in their never-ending quest
to promote themselves.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> That moose is not a collateral death. It's death is primarily
> intentional.
>
> Oookay. Correction: '1 id for you'.

You are overlooking the fact that the person with the moose in the deep
freeze, accounting for many 100's of thousands of nutrient-rich calories, is
accruing that many fewer cds than your typical vegan.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> That moose is not a collateral death. It's death is primarily
> intentional.
>
> Oookay. Correction: '1 id for you'.

You are overlooking the fact that the person with the moose in the deep
freeze, accounting for many 100's of thousands of nutrient-rich calories, is
accruing that many fewer cds than your typical vegan.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

> How many times must I correct you? If you are going
> to compare wildcrafted meat with 0 cds, then compare
> it to wildcrafted and/or veganically grown plant-based
> food, also with 0 cds.

So are you dropping the claim that the "typical vegan diet" trumps hunting
moose?

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

> How many times must I correct you? If you are going
> to compare wildcrafted meat with 0 cds, then compare
> it to wildcrafted and/or veganically grown plant-based
> food, also with 0 cds.

So are you dropping the claim that the "typical vegan diet" trumps hunting
moose?

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > If you are going to compare a wild moose with something,
> > compare it to similar wildcrafted vegan food, like wild
> > raspberries, or wild apples, or wild nuts, etc. 0 cds for
> > everyone. Woops, I forgot, you killed the moose!
> > 1 cd for you.
>
> The purpose of the moose example is to illustrate that the categorical
claim
> that "no meat is ever superior to veggies" stance taken by "vegans" is
a
> fallacy.

I would agree that the best of the meat has
less cds than the worst of the veggies, but
is that what the superiority is soley based on?

I prefer to compare like to like. The best of
each to each other, and the worst of each
with each other. That's the way I see these
things.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > If you are going to compare a wild moose with something,
> > compare it to similar wildcrafted vegan food, like wild
> > raspberries, or wild apples, or wild nuts, etc. 0 cds for
> > everyone. Woops, I forgot, you killed the moose!
> > 1 cd for you.
>
> The purpose of the moose example is to illustrate that the categorical
claim
> that "no meat is ever superior to veggies" stance taken by "vegans" is
a
> fallacy.

I would agree that the best of the meat has
less cds than the worst of the veggies, but
is that what the superiority is soley based on?

I prefer to compare like to like. The best of
each to each other, and the worst of each
with each other. That's the way I see these
things.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

[..]
> Hey, if you're going to specify a fringe market meat,
> I get to specify fringe market plant foods.

So are you admitting that it's reasonable to conclude that "fringe market
meat" probably beats out mass produced plant foods in animal harms?

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

[..]
> Hey, if you're going to specify a fringe market meat,
> I get to specify fringe market plant foods.

So are you admitting that it's reasonable to conclude that "fringe market
meat" probably beats out mass produced plant foods in animal harms?

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

> No, we weren't talking about what you and I can do
> individually. Where did you get that? No goalposts
> were moved by me. You just don't like it when I
> insist we keep the comparison of apples to apples.

We're not afraid of comparing apples to apples, but "veganism" does not do
that, it places ALL plant based food in a category ABOVE ALL animal
products.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

> No, we weren't talking about what you and I can do
> individually. Where did you get that? No goalposts
> were moved by me. You just don't like it when I
> insist we keep the comparison of apples to apples.

We're not afraid of comparing apples to apples, but "veganism" does not do
that, it places ALL plant based food in a category ABOVE ALL animal
products.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>
> > How many times must I correct you? If you are going
> > to compare wildcrafted meat with 0 cds, then compare
> > it to wildcrafted and/or veganically grown plant-based
> > food, also with 0 cds.
>
> So are you dropping the claim that the "typical vegan diet" trumps
hunting
> moose?

I never made that claim although I believe it.
The typical vegan eats a lot of organic (usually
=veganic) products. A meateater may or may
not eat lots of hunted moose.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>
> > How many times must I correct you? If you are going
> > to compare wildcrafted meat with 0 cds, then compare
> > it to wildcrafted and/or veganically grown plant-based
> > food, also with 0 cds.
>
> So are you dropping the claim that the "typical vegan diet" trumps
hunting
> moose?

I never made that claim although I believe it.
The typical vegan eats a lot of organic (usually
=veganic) products. A meateater may or may
not eat lots of hunted moose.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>
> >> That moose is not a collateral death. It's death is primarily
> > intentional.
> >
> > Oookay. Correction: '1 id for you'.
>
> You are overlooking the fact that the person with the moose in the
deep
> freeze, accounting for many 100's of thousands of nutrient-rich
calories, is
> accruing that many fewer cds than your typical vegan.

Veganic foods can be stored too. What's your point?

And remember a moose should be compared to veganic
foods in order to compare the best from each side. You
want to compare the best of meat to the worst of veggies.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>
> >> That moose is not a collateral death. It's death is primarily
> > intentional.
> >
> > Oookay. Correction: '1 id for you'.
>
> You are overlooking the fact that the person with the moose in the
deep
> freeze, accounting for many 100's of thousands of nutrient-rich
calories, is
> accruing that many fewer cds than your typical vegan.

Veganic foods can be stored too. What's your point?

And remember a moose should be compared to veganic
foods in order to compare the best from each side. You
want to compare the best of meat to the worst of veggies.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> > If you are going to compare a wild moose with something,
>> > compare it to similar wildcrafted vegan food, like wild
>> > raspberries, or wild apples, or wild nuts, etc. 0 cds for
>> > everyone. Woops, I forgot, you killed the moose!
>> > 1 cd for you.
>>
>> The purpose of the moose example is to illustrate that the categorical
> claim
>> that "no meat is ever superior to veggies" stance taken by "vegans" is
> a
>> fallacy.
>
> I would agree that the best of the meat has
> less cds than the worst of the veggies,

That's all I'm saying.

but
> is that what the superiority is soley based on?

The sense of moral superiority displayed by "vegans" is based soley on this
categorically false dichotomy, *You consume animal products, I do not.*

> I prefer to compare like to like. The best of
> each to each other, and the worst of each
> with each other. That's the way I see these
> things.

You need to simply compare all things objectively and honestly and rate them
accordingly. If you do that you will not arrive at "veganism" because of
what you already realized, "that the best of the meat has less cds than the
worst of the veggies".

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> > If you are going to compare a wild moose with something,
>> > compare it to similar wildcrafted vegan food, like wild
>> > raspberries, or wild apples, or wild nuts, etc. 0 cds for
>> > everyone. Woops, I forgot, you killed the moose!
>> > 1 cd for you.
>>
>> The purpose of the moose example is to illustrate that the categorical
> claim
>> that "no meat is ever superior to veggies" stance taken by "vegans" is
> a
>> fallacy.
>
> I would agree that the best of the meat has
> less cds than the worst of the veggies,

That's all I'm saying.

but
> is that what the superiority is soley based on?

The sense of moral superiority displayed by "vegans" is based soley on this
categorically false dichotomy, *You consume animal products, I do not.*

> I prefer to compare like to like. The best of
> each to each other, and the worst of each
> with each other. That's the way I see these
> things.

You need to simply compare all things objectively and honestly and rate them
accordingly. If you do that you will not arrive at "veganism" because of
what you already realized, "that the best of the meat has less cds than the
worst of the veggies".

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>> > How many times must I correct you? If you are going
>> > to compare wildcrafted meat with 0 cds, then compare
>> > it to wildcrafted and/or veganically grown plant-based
>> > food, also with 0 cds.
>>
>> So are you dropping the claim that the "typical vegan diet" trumps
> hunting
>> moose?
>
> I never made that claim although I believe it.

Of course you do, all vegans do.

> The typical vegan eats a lot of organic (usually
> =veganic) products.

Ipse dixit

> A meateater may or may
> not eat lots of hunted moose.

A person with a moose in the freezer eats a lot of hunted moose.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>> > How many times must I correct you? If you are going
>> > to compare wildcrafted meat with 0 cds, then compare
>> > it to wildcrafted and/or veganically grown plant-based
>> > food, also with 0 cds.
>>
>> So are you dropping the claim that the "typical vegan diet" trumps
> hunting
>> moose?
>
> I never made that claim although I believe it.

Of course you do, all vegans do.

> The typical vegan eats a lot of organic (usually
> =veganic) products.

Ipse dixit

> A meateater may or may
> not eat lots of hunted moose.

A person with a moose in the freezer eats a lot of hunted moose.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>> >> That moose is not a collateral death. It's death is primarily
>> > intentional.
>> >
>> > Oookay. Correction: '1 id for you'.
>>
>> You are overlooking the fact that the person with the moose in the
> deep
>> freeze, accounting for many 100's of thousands of nutrient-rich
> calories, is
>> accruing that many fewer cds than your typical vegan.
>
> Veganic foods can be stored too. What's your point?

The typical vegan is not eating "veganic foods" whatever that means.

> And remember a moose should be compared to veganic
> foods in order to compare the best from each side. You
> want to compare the best of meat to the worst of veggies.

No, I want to rank ALL foods on one scale based on their most probable
quotient of animal harm. It's YOUR bias that demands this false meat/veggie
dichotomy.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>> >> That moose is not a collateral death. It's death is primarily
>> > intentional.
>> >
>> > Oookay. Correction: '1 id for you'.
>>
>> You are overlooking the fact that the person with the moose in the
> deep
>> freeze, accounting for many 100's of thousands of nutrient-rich
> calories, is
>> accruing that many fewer cds than your typical vegan.
>
> Veganic foods can be stored too. What's your point?

The typical vegan is not eating "veganic foods" whatever that means.

> And remember a moose should be compared to veganic
> foods in order to compare the best from each side. You
> want to compare the best of meat to the worst of veggies.

No, I want to rank ALL foods on one scale based on their most probable
quotient of animal harm. It's YOUR bias that demands this false meat/veggie
dichotomy.

"Ted Bell" > wrote in message
ink.net...
8<
> "vegans" aren't concerned in the least about the 1000 deaths, because they
> don't eat the corpses.

Not quite true - residual insect matter, and even ground up small mammal
remains finds its way into many mechanically treated plant foods. I eat
figs, and other fruits and leaves (unwashed/uncooked) that contain insect
residues. What concerns vegans is to try and reduce the creatures that are
killed deliberately and in easily avoidable ways, and the focus is mainly on
vertibrates. If there is stuff we cannot reduce easily, then so be it.
However, veganic growing exists and addresses all the collateral death and
exploitation issues as completely as possible.

Vegans focus on animal exploitation (i.e. slavery) and cruelty - it is all
about human motivations and sensitivities. Animals killed in slaughterhouses
sometimes have their feet cut off, or are disemboweled while still conscious
and this is about as cruel as humans can be IMO. If a farmer growing veggies
squashes a small mammal with his tractor, then that is as bad an end
perhaps, but the farmer probably would not be aware of the death or intend
it, so he would not be judged to be "cruel". Vegans do not expect or demand
an overnight revolution, we only hope to challenge the worst kinds of human
barbarity. If more people become vegans, then the other issues with the
cruelty inherent in veggie culture could be dealt with also.

> The animal deaths are indivisible. If the food production that caused the
> 1000 collateral deaths yielded food to feed 100,000 people (that would be
> some yield!), the eaters cannot say that they only "caused" 1/100th of a
> death. They all, collectively, are responsible for all 1000 deaths.

The person who kills the animals is responsible for the deaths. No one who
buys vegetables is paying the farmer to massacre animals, one who buys meat
definately is. A meat buyer is paying for dead animal, a veg buyer is paying
for vegetables. We are sorry animals die to produce vegetable foods, but we
have to eat them or die. Nobody has to eat meat. Taking vegetable foods, and
then passing them through other animals, only recovering a fraction of the
calorific input value of the original foods is obviously going to
concentrate up the number of deaths required per unit of food, and then add
the lifestocks 1 death on top. In general, by eating plant foods directly we
increase efficiency and decrease collateral deaths considerably. There are
some exceptions, but they do not disprove the general rule.

> The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish,
causing
> one animal death;

And what of the other fish deaths necessary to feed the 1 fish?

John

"Ted Bell" > wrote in message
ink.net...
8<
> "vegans" aren't concerned in the least about the 1000 deaths, because they
> don't eat the corpses.

Not quite true - residual insect matter, and even ground up small mammal
remains finds its way into many mechanically treated plant foods. I eat
figs, and other fruits and leaves (unwashed/uncooked) that contain insect
residues. What concerns vegans is to try and reduce the creatures that are
killed deliberately and in easily avoidable ways, and the focus is mainly on
vertibrates. If there is stuff we cannot reduce easily, then so be it.
However, veganic growing exists and addresses all the collateral death and
exploitation issues as completely as possible.

Vegans focus on animal exploitation (i.e. slavery) and cruelty - it is all
about human motivations and sensitivities. Animals killed in slaughterhouses
sometimes have their feet cut off, or are disemboweled while still conscious
and this is about as cruel as humans can be IMO. If a farmer growing veggies
squashes a small mammal with his tractor, then that is as bad an end
perhaps, but the farmer probably would not be aware of the death or intend
it, so he would not be judged to be "cruel". Vegans do not expect or demand
an overnight revolution, we only hope to challenge the worst kinds of human
barbarity. If more people become vegans, then the other issues with the
cruelty inherent in veggie culture could be dealt with also.

> The animal deaths are indivisible. If the food production that caused the
> 1000 collateral deaths yielded food to feed 100,000 people (that would be
> some yield!), the eaters cannot say that they only "caused" 1/100th of a
> death. They all, collectively, are responsible for all 1000 deaths.

The person who kills the animals is responsible for the deaths. No one who
buys vegetables is paying the farmer to massacre animals, one who buys meat
definately is. A meat buyer is paying for dead animal, a veg buyer is paying
for vegetables. We are sorry animals die to produce vegetable foods, but we
have to eat them or die. Nobody has to eat meat. Taking vegetable foods, and
then passing them through other animals, only recovering a fraction of the
calorific input value of the original foods is obviously going to
concentrate up the number of deaths required per unit of food, and then add
the lifestocks 1 death on top. In general, by eating plant foods directly we
increase efficiency and decrease collateral deaths considerably. There are
some exceptions, but they do not disprove the general rule.

> The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish,
causing
> one animal death;

And what of the other fish deaths necessary to feed the 1 fish?

John

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
.net...
8<
> Thanks for helping to demonstrate that, contrary to the
> foolish assertions of John Coleman, "veganism" VERY
> MUCH IS about a numbers game.

Veganism isn't a science, it is a simple philosophy based on compassion for
animals. No one had to do a degree in math, and field research to figure
that veganic growing causes the least cds.

John

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
.net...
8<
> Thanks for helping to demonstrate that, contrary to the
> foolish assertions of John Coleman, "veganism" VERY
> MUCH IS about a numbers game.

Veganism isn't a science, it is a simple philosophy based on compassion for
animals. No one had to do a degree in math, and field research to figure
that veganic growing causes the least cds.

John

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>Thanks for helping to demonstrate that, contrary to the
>>foolish assertions of John Coleman, "veganism" VERY
>>MUCH IS about a numbers game.
>
>
> The numbers, when calculated properly will always
> show eating vegan is better.

Not good enough. "vegans" claim to live
"cruelty-free", and their (faulty) reasons for being
"vegan" in the first place *demand* that they actually
attain it. They fail. The counting game is a fraud.

>
>
>>It IS a form of religion. A belief system need not
>>have priests and sacred texts to be a religion,
>>although "veganism" has things very much like priests
>>and sacred texts.
>
>
> I don't agree.

You are wrong.

> At it's most extreme, it could be called
> a lifestyle or a philosophy.

It is a religiously held belief system.

>
>
>>There is no such word as "veganic".
>
>
> There should be.

There isn't.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>Thanks for helping to demonstrate that, contrary to the
>>foolish assertions of John Coleman, "veganism" VERY
>>MUCH IS about a numbers game.
>
>
> The numbers, when calculated properly will always
> show eating vegan is better.

Not good enough. "vegans" claim to live
"cruelty-free", and their (faulty) reasons for being
"vegan" in the first place *demand* that they actually
attain it. They fail. The counting game is a fraud.

>
>
>>It IS a form of religion. A belief system need not
>>have priests and sacred texts to be a religion,
>>although "veganism" has things very much like priests
>>and sacred texts.
>
>
> I don't agree.

You are wrong.

> At it's most extreme, it could be called
> a lifestyle or a philosophy.

It is a religiously held belief system.

>
>
>>There is no such word as "veganic".
>
>
> There should be.

There isn't.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > Thanks for helping to demonstrate that, contrary to the
> > foolish assertions of John Coleman, "veganism" VERY
> > MUCH IS about a numbers game.
>
> The numbers, when calculated properly will always
> show eating vegan is better.

agreed

> I don't agree. At it's most extreme, it could be called
> a lifestyle or a philosophy.

Veganism is on the fringes of being a religion. Is womens liberation with
its freedom philosophy and leaders a religion? No! Nor is veganism.

> > There is no such word as "veganic".
>
> There should be. It's a great word. Someone here used
> it a few days ago.

There is such a word http://www.free-definition.com/Veganic-gardening.html

John

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > Thanks for helping to demonstrate that, contrary to the
> > foolish assertions of John Coleman, "veganism" VERY
> > MUCH IS about a numbers game.
>
> The numbers, when calculated properly will always
> show eating vegan is better.

agreed

> I don't agree. At it's most extreme, it could be called
> a lifestyle or a philosophy.

Veganism is on the fringes of being a religion. Is womens liberation with
its freedom philosophy and leaders a religion? No! Nor is veganism.

> > There is no such word as "veganic".
>
> There should be. It's a great word. Someone here used
> it a few days ago.

There is such a word http://www.free-definition.com/Veganic-gardening.html

John

John Coleman wrote:

> "Ted Bell" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> 8<
>
>>"vegans" aren't concerned in the least about the 1000 deaths, because they
>>don't eat the corpses.
>
>
> Not quite true

EXACTLY true. No one is talking about insect matter.


> Vegans focus on animal exploitation (i.e. slavery) and cruelty - it is all
> about human motivations and sensitivities.

Your motivation is not what you claim.


>>The animal deaths are indivisible. If the food production that caused the
>>1000 collateral deaths yielded food to feed 100,000 people (that would be
>>some yield!), the eaters cannot say that they only "caused" 1/100th of a
>>death. They all, collectively, are responsible for all 1000 deaths.
>
>
> The person who kills the animals is responsible for the deaths.

The people who demand the food that leads to the animal
slaughter, whether the corpses are eaten or not, SHARE
the responsibility for the deaths.

There is no escaping it, Johnny. You are responsible
for the deaths of animals in the course of producing
the foods you eat.

> No one who
> buys vegetables is paying the farmer to massacre animals,

IRRELEVANT! The animals are killed, and you KNOW they
are killed, and you do not "need" to buy food from
animal-killing farmers.

You are COMPLICIT in the collateral deaths of countless
thousands or millions of animals. You, John Coleman,
share moral reponsibility for millions of animal deaths.


>
>>The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish,
>>causing one animal death;
>
>
> And what of the other fish deaths necessary to feed the 1 fish?

None are necessary.

John Coleman wrote:

> "Ted Bell" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> 8<
>
>>"vegans" aren't concerned in the least about the 1000 deaths, because they
>>don't eat the corpses.
>
>
> Not quite true

EXACTLY true. No one is talking about insect matter.


> Vegans focus on animal exploitation (i.e. slavery) and cruelty - it is all
> about human motivations and sensitivities.

Your motivation is not what you claim.


>>The animal deaths are indivisible. If the food production that caused the
>>1000 collateral deaths yielded food to feed 100,000 people (that would be
>>some yield!), the eaters cannot say that they only "caused" 1/100th of a
>>death. They all, collectively, are responsible for all 1000 deaths.
>
>
> The person who kills the animals is responsible for the deaths.

The people who demand the food that leads to the animal
slaughter, whether the corpses are eaten or not, SHARE
the responsibility for the deaths.

There is no escaping it, Johnny. You are responsible
for the deaths of animals in the course of producing
the foods you eat.

> No one who
> buys vegetables is paying the farmer to massacre animals,

IRRELEVANT! The animals are killed, and you KNOW they
are killed, and you do not "need" to buy food from
animal-killing farmers.

You are COMPLICIT in the collateral deaths of countless
thousands or millions of animals. You, John Coleman,
share moral reponsibility for millions of animal deaths.


>
>>The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish,
>>causing one animal death;
>
>
> And what of the other fish deaths necessary to feed the 1 fish?

None are necessary.

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> As soon as you correct yourself, fool. You made the claim that all vegan
> foods are better than all meats. A claim that you cannot back up, and
have
> now been shown to be a ly. So now it's up to goal-post moves. Nice try
> hypocrite, but your diet still loses, killer.

Comparing apples and oranges is a well known logical fallacy.

But you may well be right that perhaps a packet of buscuits causes more
total deaths than say a piece of pasture fed beef - but you have not proven
this yet. You have no real numbers for such comparisons. However, we can
state obviously that for any comparable system of production, taking the
plant food directly will depend on causeing less cds. And we can also state
factually that veganic growing is possible.

John

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> As soon as you correct yourself, fool. You made the claim that all vegan
> foods are better than all meats. A claim that you cannot back up, and
have
> now been shown to be a ly. So now it's up to goal-post moves. Nice try
> hypocrite, but your diet still loses, killer.

Comparing apples and oranges is a well known logical fallacy.

But you may well be right that perhaps a packet of buscuits causes more
total deaths than say a piece of pasture fed beef - but you have not proven
this yet. You have no real numbers for such comparisons. However, we can
state obviously that for any comparable system of production, taking the
plant food directly will depend on causeing less cds. And we can also state
factually that veganic growing is possible.

John

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> I'm referring to the meat industry as a whole
> and the plants grown for human consumption
> industry as a whole.

Correct SN, Rick is engaged in the attempt to _use an exception to disprove
a general rule_. Another favoured logical fallacy of his ilk.

Rick needs lessons in philosophy of science as well as English language.

John

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> I'm referring to the meat industry as a whole
> and the plants grown for human consumption
> industry as a whole.

Correct SN, Rick is engaged in the attempt to _use an exception to disprove
a general rule_. Another favoured logical fallacy of his ilk.

Rick needs lessons in philosophy of science as well as English language.

John

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> If? What a hoot!!! Try checking the total amounts of 'organic'
> pesticides alone that are applied to crops in the US. Organic farms
> account for 3% of the US production, but use about 25% of total
pesticides.

support this with evidence

> So, how to you propose that all these farmers 'go vegan' and still be able
> to provide you with your cheap, clean, conveninet veggies, hypocrite?

They can grow fruit and nuts, give up farming and I'll collect the food
myself.

John

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> If? What a hoot!!! Try checking the total amounts of 'organic'
> pesticides alone that are applied to crops in the US. Organic farms
> account for 3% of the US production, but use about 25% of total
pesticides.

support this with evidence

> So, how to you propose that all these farmers 'go vegan' and still be able
> to provide you with your cheap, clean, conveninet veggies, hypocrite?

They can grow fruit and nuts, give up farming and I'll collect the food
myself.

John

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
k.net...
> John Coleman wrote:
8<
> > I'm not sure who wrote this nonsense, I have already pointed out the
> > fallacies.
>
> No, you haven't.

see my many weeks of replies to Rick and others

> > 1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals
in
> > veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or
not,
> > then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop such
> > practices
>
> There is no "need" for farmers to "go 'vegan'", except
> in your warped ideology.

If farmers want to cause less suffering to animals they are essentially
starting to go vegan. They don't in the strict sense "need" to, it is
optional, but "necessary" if they are concerned to reduce animal suffering.

> You can't escape the fact that you are blaming the
> farmer for YOUR failure to live as you claim to live:
> "cruelty free". Your claim is false, and you know it;
> when you stand by the claim, you become a liar.

I don't cause cruelty to animals. Cruelty involves intent, a person who
unintentionally harms an animal is not cruel.

> > 2) veganism isn't a numbers game
>
> As I've demonstrated numerous times, it very much IS a
> numbers game. First, "vegans" begin by believing the
> classic Denying the Antecedent fallacy:

There is no science of veganism.

> if I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
> animals
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
> of animals

Many vegans are aware that ANY human activity causes animal suffering, that
is why the don't have children.

> Don't bother denying it; ALL "vegans" begin by
> believing this fallacy.

Actually global claims of "ALL..." is also another fallacy - no one is ever
in a position to know of ALL occassions of any event.

> that it IS a fallacy, leading to the inescapable
> conclusion that refraining from consuming animal
> products does NOT mean one leads a "cruelty free"
> lifestyle, they ALL retreat to a numbers game: they
> begin claiming, without support, that they cause fewer
> instances of animal death and suffering.

Maybe some, and maybe some of them are right.

> > 3) pasture ranging cattle do not tiptoe through the meadows, they
trample
> > other creatures
>
> Prove it.

A cow weighs about a ton(?), and it displaces its weight over 4 tiny hooves.
A tractor probably weights a few tons and displaces its weight over huge
tyres. I'd rather be rolled by a tractor than cattle. If cattle are known to
avoid stepping on small creatures, then you provide the evidence, until then
we have to accept the obvious - cattle kill lots of creatures down below.
They also eat plenty up off the grass. Insects are everywhere by their
millions, small vertibrates inhabit grasslands also. There have already been
posts about the damage to habitats caused by cattle, and killing required to
protect them from wild predators.

> > 4) vegans advocate veganic agriculture, free of any pesticides and
dangerous
> > machinery
>
> Their "advocacy" is ineffectual and does not absolve
> them of responsibility for being cheerful accomplices
> in the non-"veganic" (that's not even a word) slaughter
> of animals in agriculture.

Were the Jews who helped build and run the deathcamps cheerful accomplaces?
No they were stuck in a system imposed by the sick society they were in.
They got on with it to survive. Many vegans deplore all of the damage our
modern culture does, but we have little practical option but to go along.
Yes, the careless outnumber us massively, but that is not an argument
against veganism, rather the opposite.

Taking a position against society on something doesn't have to be widely
"effectual" (because it is not widely accepted) for it to be a beneficial
thing to do. Even if a vegan only saves 1 animals life compared to someone
else in their society, can you really claim they have not been "effectual"?

> It certainly is! That's why you should stop embracing it.

I know what compassion and caring are, I have no idea what "morality" is -
everyone has their own opinion on that.

John